Bonus from "Before I Had a Blog"

This may actually be on the Net somewhere since I wrote for a guy who ran a "patriot" forum a few years back. A patriot forum was where we talked about the Constitution and the best weapons for dealing with brain-eating zombie outbreaks. I ran across the copy a few days ago and thought it seemed timely. Back then I called it: The Right to Offend


Few argue the influence of Thomas Jefferson on American history. Nor is there great debate regarding his political genius. Still, the Republic’s third President remains a controversial figure in history. His religious views in particular are intriguing and slightly mysterious. One thing is certain. Jefferson did his best to keep his personal religion a private matter. He was not one to attempt to impose his personal view of Jesus on the public.

It is often claimed that Jefferson was a Deist and his creedal statements seem to support that. Nevertheless, he honored Jesus as a teacher, calling Him the greatest of sages, while believing that the New Testament account of the Master’s life was somewhat exaggerated. By 1804 Jefferson had settled in as President and concluded the Louisiana Purchase. With nothing better to do, Jefferson ordered two copies of the same edition of the English New Testament. In his office, the President took a razor to the holy writ and excised out what he considered to be the true sayings of Jesus of Nazareth. He took his passages only from the Gospels and it turned out to be a very thin volume. Jefferson’s first gospel digest has not survived but he did a later version that included what he considered both the true acts and the true sayings of Jesus.

In essence Jefferson took out all that was supernatural or miraculous in nature. Gone were the Lord’s claims of divinity, the ‘I AM’ statements from the Gospel of John, the healings and the signs. The Sermon on the Mount seems to have survived mostly intact. Jefferson’s Jesus was a man who prayed and taught, a wise sage who reasoned like an Enlightenment philosopher, no wild desert prophet.

Both Jefferson’s respect for the Galilean Carpenter and his correspondence with the Unitarian Joseph Priestly indicates that he may have gone beyond Deism in his beliefs. Even the most dedicated of Deists witnessing the triumph of the Continental Army and the peaceful transitions of power under the Constitution might be inclined to wonder if the Great Watchmaker in the Sky did not occasionally reset His timepiece. Later, after he reconciled with his old political foe, John Adams, also a Unitarian, Jefferson expressed his view that Unitarianism would be the religion of the future in America. At least one modern writer, Stephen Prothero, author of American Jesus believes that Jefferson would feel quite at ease in today’s Unitarian church, though he would be one of its most conservative adherents.

Wherever Jefferson’s religious sentiments lay, he might have trouble making his way to the Oval Office in 21st Century America. The majority of Americans in our so-called pluralistic society not only agree with Jefferson’s positive view of Jesus, they hold to belief in His claim of being the Son of God, in His Virgin Birth and His Resurrection. American society today is much more “Christian” and outwardly pious than was colonial America or the Republic in its earliest days. It was not until the Second Great Awakening in the 1850’s and following that American Christianity as we think of it today really began to take hold across the nation.

Jefferson, though, was a person who had no quarrel with the Christianity of others. When Washington D.C. was established as the nation’s capital in 1800, Congress authorized the use of the Capitol as a church for Sunday services. While President, Jefferson attended these services and even sent a military band to aid in providing music for the song service. In The Writing of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Albert Bergh, Jefferson stated in correspondence to a Dr. Thomas Cooper that he found no problem with the local courthouse being used as a meetinghouse for Christian services (Vol. XV, p. 404).

Neither Jefferson nor any of the other Founders, including the deeply religious Washington, could foresee the changes that would take place in American culture and religious sentiment. They were students of history and knew what had happened in England and throughout Europe as a result of religious wars. They wished to avoid that in America. To that end, the First Amendment with its Establishment Clause heads up the Bill of Rights. There is no Church of the United States. We are neither a Protestant nation nor a Catholic nation. No sect, as the Founders would think of it, would be given support by the federal government.

I doubt there is a Christian in America that has a problem with that idea. Not even Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell would embrace a theocratic government, despite the cries of their critics. Most Christians merely ask for the right to acknowledge Christ in the public arena. We reason that we are the majority in most of our local communities. We pay most of the taxes for city hall, the county courthouse, and the local government school. We should be able to do what we like in those places as long as we do not deny the same rights to others.

Keep in mind, there is a significant difference between violating the rights of an individual and offending an individual. We all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution gives us no rights but it does recognize some of the rights we have – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. If I do not act to abridge the rights of another human being, the government has no business interfering with me.

Offending another is an entirely different issue. My wife sent out Christmas cards and enclosed a poem in almost all of them. It was no big deal; just something she thought was inspiring and appropriate. She did print it up very nicely. In the rush, she forgot to enclose one in the card she sent to her oldest sister – or maybe I forgot. As a result my sister-in-law got her feelings hurt. My sister-in-law went so far as to call a number of the other relatives to ask if they received a poem. She is a lovely woman but she is apparently crazier than a loon.

She was deeply offended. But her rights were not violated.

A small town not far from where I live had a Christian symbol, a cross, I believe, as part of their official city seal. An atheist who lived there was offended. She filed suit and forced the town to remove the symbol from the document.

I am expecting a subpoena over the poem any day.

Is there a right not to see a cross? Or, was the atheist just offended by the appearance of it?

I am purposely being dense, right? It is obvious that having a picture of a cross on the seal down at city hall is a violation of the separation of church and state. The secularists are screaming at me now. That town is establishing a religion. The city has violated the First Amendment rights of the atheist.

Nope. The establishment clause pertains specifically to Congress. Having a cross on the Halfway, Missouri seal does not rise to that level no matter what the Supreme Court says. Only a lawyer could be stupid enough to read that into the First Amendment.

Further, the town (I really don’t think it was Halfway, I just like the name) did not do anything to support the Christian religion with taxpayer money. Neither does the State of Missouri do anything to support Neptune/Poseidon worship even though there is a big statue of the character behind the capitol in Jefferson City. The cross is a Christian symbol, but it is not exclusively a Christian symbol. Crosses are wore by Goth chicks at the mall who appear to be invisible in mirrors and by performers upon whom the roof would surely fall if they ever entered a church building. The ankh, a cross with a little loop on top, pre-dates Christianity and was the ancient Egyptian symbol of eternal life. The same goes for other symbols – fish or whatever. A symbol has the meaning that the observer assigns to it. If I saw a city seal with the crescent moon on it, I would assume it is run by Shriners (God help us), if you want to be offended by it that is your problem.

This whole mess, from the 1962 rulings about prayer in school to the more recent controversies over Christmas parades and displays, has absolutely nothing to do with individual rights. The courts started making decisions on the basis of people being offended.

Those poor little atheist kids could not pray and just had to stand there, feeling pressured, feeling outcast, and having their little feelings being hurt. It is up to the courts to protect these precious ones from the horrors of Christian indoctrination.

That is it.

They have a right to not be offended.

The benediction at the commencement exercise offends them. It does not violate their freedom of religion or their freedom of speech. It just offends them. Their kid is too stupid to make valedictorian, so they do not want the Christian kid who did end up at the top of his or her class to be able to thank God for the success. They are offended when the football team wants to pray before the game, even though most of the players are Christians. They are offended that a local clergyman puts in an appearance at the city council meeting and opens with prayer – even though it costs no one a dime.

Practice your religion inside your churches or in the confines of your home, the secularist says. That is the secularist definition of religious freedom. Interestingly enough, it is quite similar to the definition they have in China and the one they had in the old Soviet Union. You can be a Christian, just keep it to yourself. All you gay guys painted purple and dressed as butterflies with a sparkler up your butt can go on parade, but you mouthy Christians need to get back in your closet.

That is not what men like Jefferson had in mind when they penned the First Amendment, any more than they meant for the Second Amendment to be about the National Guard or collective rights. The Constitution protects the religious rights of individuals, that includes the right of a speaker to try to win converts in public and of hearers to put their fingers in their ears, walk away or shout down the speaker. My freedom of speech should not be limited by the fact that you cannot see or do not believe in the person to whom I am speaking. I certainly cannot believe that my wife finds so many people to talk to on her cell phone, and she has never figured out whom I am addressing when I am out in the field alone.

Freedom sometimes is not pretty. Truly free people often get offended and have their feelings hurt. In fact the First Amendment seems to me to guarantee the right to offend others more than anything else. Inoffensive speech does not need protection. As the Supreme Court reads it, First Amendment protection covers a pornographer dispersing his wares on magazine racks and over the Internet. It should also protect children praying over their school lunches at the local government school (and if any meal needs prayer it is a school lunch). Christians may have to unplug their television sets to keep the broadcast filth away from their children. Non-theists might have to carry earplugs or headphones wherever they go.

It is a rough world.

Deal with it.